Did Nephi Jump To An Unwarranted Conclusion? Re: Blackness

[BCSpace]

BCSpace, I'm aware of the current official literature's acceptance that the Lamanites were turned into dark skinned people. I'm aware that Nephi and other Book of Mormon authors believe this is the case as well. I am questioning this assumption in the spirit of President Uchdorf's message:

If the Church wants to change it's official doctrine, it certainly can. Christofferson described the methodology in the most recent Sunday morning address. Notice also that President Uchdorf also referenced the scriptures AND the "handbooks" (obviously not just the CHI). There is nothing wrong with seeking answers for ourselves or making speculations or postulations so long as we don't attribute them to the Church (I don't think I see any of that yet in this thread, just saying) and especially in contradiction to it's published doctrine.

I myself have so sought and, for example, have found the solution to the evolution question. I don't claim it for LDS doctrine (but I do claim it doesn't conflict with LDS doctrine) and I don't claim everyone must accept it. But nevertheless, I have got past the massive iron gate within the bounds the Lord has set.

Edited April 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[zerinus]

Nephi claims God put a skin of blackness on people in order for the Nephites to be repelled by them, so they don't intermingle.

Jacob shares a revelation saying skin color doesn't matter as an indication of righteousness, and shouldn't be a judging factor.

This is inconsistent. To me, it appears that either Jacob's revelation and Nephi's interpretation cannot both be correct. Or, inbetween the death of Nephi and this book of Jacob, God changed the rules.

The two alternative viewpoints (Nephi's and Jacob's), are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. Nephi's assertion that the cursing consisted of a darkened skin, and Jacob's assertion that the Nephites should not revile against the Lamanites because of the darkness of their skins, are not contradictory or mutually exclusive. Nowhere does Nephi suggest that his people should revile against the Lamanites because of their curse, or because of the darkness of their skins which was a sign of their curse. The curse had come because of the tradition of their fathers (Jacob 3:9); and the promise was extended to them that should they repent of those traditions, the curse should be lifted (2 Nephi 5:22; Alma 17:15); which promise we know at one point in their history was fulfilled.

[BCSpace]

Nowhere does Nephi suggest that his people should revile against the Lamanites because of their curse, or because of the darkness of their skins which was a sign of their curse

Nevertheless, the scriptures state that dark skin was a negative inducement:

"wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

...and so we can see how quickly and easily such could devolve into reviling because there already is a divinely intentional loathing.

[David T]

Nevertheless, the scriptures state that dark skin was a negative inducement:

"wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

...and so we can see how quickly and easily such could devolve into reviling because there already is a divinely intentional loathing.

Noted also that while Nephi says they caused to be black, his CFR has The Lord saying they will made "loathsome" Creative interpretation, methinks

[zerinus]

Nevertheless, the scriptures state that dark skin was a negative inducement:

"wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be centicing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities."

...and so we can see how quickly and easily such could devolve into reviling because there already is a divinely intentional loathing.

That means (primarily) that they should not be attractive to them in marriage, so that they would not intermarry and thus be corrupted by their incorrect traditions. "Fair and delightsome" means that they were handsome and good looking. The Lord caused the changes so that they would no longer be "enticing" to the Nephites (2 Nephi 5:21). That means that they should not desire to marry them. None of this however suggests that they should revile against them. Those are two different things.

[J Green]

David,

I floated a similar theory several years ago, so I agree with your assessment. I have long argued that Lehi, Nephi and Jacob have a priestly background. And one of the main motifs from the era of the return (Malachi, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc.) is the priestly issue of intermmariage. It's a striking theme in second temple literature, including the texts from Qumran. There is this sense of division between us and them. So while there are certainly a number of metaphorical uses of color in the BOM, as pointed out by Jeremy and others, there are a few that appear to read better in a more literal sense. And these passage I've always read in a context of priestly separation--it is a natural consequence of intermarriage that Nephi interprets in a spiritual sense. This is a very priestly point of view. It fits the time and background.

This theory differs somewhat from Brant's perspective in that if I remember right, Brant sees intermarriage among the Nephites and the "others" within the first few generations, including those Jacob is addressing. If I'm accurate in his position, I likely disagree with it. As stated above, I think that the priestly family of Lehi wouldn't have intermarried with the indigenous population. I think this would have started to happen generations later.

Cheers.

[LDSGuy]

I wonder if skins refer to something other than their anatomy, but maybe hearkening back to the skins God made for Adam and Eve? If you catch my drift...

Edited April 5, 2012 by LDSGuy

[David T]

Sherem was an outsider - he was not Nephite, and it appears he was not Lamanite. His treatment does not appear to accord with having the "skin of blackness." He worked his way through the Nephite society, even until he was given access to the prophet, Jacob. He was sufficiently important in their society that he was able to call a convocation of the people prior to his death.

I passed over this. This is interesting, and I will have to look into it. Thanks for all the feedback.

[David T]

I wonder if skins refer to something other than their anatomy, but maybe hearkening back to the skins God made for Adam and Eve? If you catch my drift...

I don't think it is any more helpful with our interpretation to propose that God physically changed all of their clothing than for God to have changed their genetic phenotype.

[Areabird]

Why would God introduce such a short-sighted distinctive quality such as the color one one's skin to show who was righteous and who wasn't? Once you soften your heart and accept the gospel you should no longer be reviled. But if your skin was dark how would anyone know that you had a change of heart?

Changing the color of skin for a group has never made much sense to me. You're punishing people for the sins of their fathers, and even if you repent the 'good' people will still treat you like a pariah. If God wants you to treat people based on the content of their character and their good works, why mess with skin color?

[Log]

Why would God introduce such a short-sighted distinctive quality such as the color one one's skin to show who was righteous and who wasn't?

Alma 3:6-9 explains it.

Once you soften your heart and accept the gospel you should no longer be reviled.

You should not be reviled before then either (Jacob 3:9).

But if your skin was dark how would anyone know that you had a change of heart?

By your works, the same as a repentant soul seeking to enter the Church of Christ (D&C 20:37).

Changing the color of skin for a group has never made much sense to me. You're punishing people for the sins of their fathers, and even if you repent the 'good' people will still treat you like a pariah.

The Lord says he does just that (Exodus 34:7). He also says he will heap the sins of the children upon the heads of the fathers (Jacob 3:10).

It happens to be the case that the sins of parents do negatively affect children's lives, cascading through the generations, and the parents will answer for it.

If God wants you to treat people based on the content of their character and their good works, why mess with skin color?

Specific circumstances require specific actions at times. It so happened that this course of action fulfilled God's purposes, spelled out in 2 Ne 5:21 and Alma 3:6-9.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Log

[Log]

Back on topic - DavidT, I think absent any compelling reason to the contrary, we should assume Nephi was not mistaken. So far as I am aware, there is no compelling reason to the contrary.

Unless, lurking in the background somewhere, there's a belief that "God just doesn't change peoples' skin colors," or some variant thereof.

[zerinus]

David,

I floated a similar theory several years ago, so I agree with your assessment. I have long argued that Lehi, Nephi and Jacob have a priestly background. And one of the main motifs from the era of the return (Malachi, Ezra, Nehemiah, etc.) is the priestly issue of intermmariage. It's a striking theme in second temple literature, including the texts from Qumran. There is this sense of division between us and them. So while there are certainly a number of metaphorical uses of color in the BOM, as pointed out by Jeremy and others, there are a few that appear to read better in a more literal sense. And these passage I've always read in a context of priestly separation--it is a natural consequence of intermarriage that Nephi interprets in a spiritual sense. This is a very priestly point of view. It fits the time and background.

This theory differs somewhat from Brant's perspective in that if I remember right, Brant sees intermarriage among the Nephites and the "others" within the first few generations, including those Jacob is addressing. If I'm accurate in his position, I likely disagree with it. As stated above, I think that the priestly family of Lehi wouldn't have intermarried with the indigenous population. I think this would have started to happen generations later.

Cheers.

I don't see how the priesthood has anything to do with it. Lehi was of the tribe of Ephraim, and was not entitled to the Levitical priesthood by lineage. Whatever priesthood they had is more likely to have been as we have it in the Church today, or one that was specially designed and tailor made by the Lord for them. That is point #1. Secondly, the prohibition against intermarriage with Gentiles goes back to the Law of Moses, and has nothing to do with the priesthood--except that in the post-exile period the Jewish priests had turned it into "race" issue (i.e. preserving the "purity of the seed"). And thirdly, Laman and Lemuel were not "Gentiles" that "race" should be an issue for them. They were descendants of Abraham, and children of Lehi, and entitled to whatever "priesthood" they would have been entitled to by lineage (if any); so I don't see what relevance the priesthood has to any of this. The curse on Laman and Lemuel was not engineered be Nephi or Lehi, but came from God as a consequence of their transgressions. What the "priesthood" has to do with any of this I have no idea.

Edited April 6, 2012 by zerinus

[why me]

Your theory doesn't explain this passage: And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;

I don't think that we are dealing with colors of white and black at all, at least, not as we tend to view it. Critics tend to view blackness as the color of africans. This is far from the truth. And white as european in color. This is far from the truth also. Critics need to reevaluate their concept of race and color in the book of mormon. If Nephi and Lehi came from the middle east, the chances of them to be white in skin color as the Finn or the Swede is slight to none.

Edited April 6, 2012 by why me

[J Green]

I don't see how the priesthood has anything to do with it. Lehi was of the tribe of Ephraim, and was not entitled to the Levitical priesthood by lineage.

Note that I didn't say anything about a Levitical priesthood. Most LDS scholars consider that Lehi held the Melchizedek priesthood. (The question is what the lineage for this priesthood is.) The word I used was priestly. All the biblical and pseudo-biblical texts for the time period from the exile onward document various Israelite priestly classes fixated on the uncleanliness of intermarriage. It is a very strong motif in priestly literature and thus indicative that this question actually does have something to do with the priesthood, or at the very least the culture of the individuals in the priesthood at the time.

Secondly, the prohibition against intermarriage with Gentiles goes back to the Law of Moses, and has nothing to do with the priesthood--except that in the post-exile period the Jewish priests had turned it into "race" issue (i.e. preserving the "purity of the seed").

The question here isn't necessarily God's intent or the purest form of the revelation. The point is that the priests at the time of the exile did believe that they were the gatekeepers to purity of intermarriage and that intermarriage was wrong. The accuracy of their belief from our perspective thousands of years later through the lens of the restored gospel is an interesting question but not one that is necessarily relevant to the question at hand. The priests at the time believed this, ergo it becomes an issue related to the priesthood. Do Nephi's comments about skin fit this pattern of belief? Has he attempted to spiritualize the results of intermarriage based on the culture from which he emerges? I'm not claiming it to be the case or even to be important. But given the priestly literature from the time in which Nephi emerges, I think it's a fair question for DavidT to ask.

And thirdly, Laman and Lemuel were not "Gentiles" that "race" should be an issue for them.

Unless Laman and Lemuel intermarried with the indigenous population. Then that IS the issue.

They were descendants of Abraham, and children of Lehi, and entitled to whatever "priesthood" they would have been entitled to by lineage (if any);

Not necessarily, as we don't know how the administration of the priesthood they had worked. Nephi as king consecrates Jacob a priest. Why wasn't Jacob entitled to this office simply by virtue of his lineage from Lehi? Can we automatically assume that Laman and Lemuel were given the priesthood or priesthood offices by Lehi? I don't think we can.

so I don't see what relevance the priesthood has to any of this.

Whether or not you agree with my perspective, I hope I've made it a little clearer.

Cheers

[J Green]

Mr. T,

Sherem was an outsider - he was not Nephite, and it appears he was not Lamanite. His treatment does not appear to accord with having the "skin of blackness." He worked his way through the Nephite society, even until he was given access to the prophet, Jacob. He was sufficiently important in their society that he was able to call a convocation of the people prior to his death.

Log,

See Kevin Christensen's theory of Sherem as a Mulekite in "The Deuteronomist De-Christianizing of the Old Testament."

Regards

[Log]

JG,

It is, of course, possible, and not the only possibility.

Thanks for reminding me of that paper. I hadn't read it for a while.

[David T]

Elsewhere I have discussed this, and realized many were making uncharitable assumptions about my motivations and conclusions. I replied with this, which, while I frankly acknowledge that the posts here have been extremely charitable and actually helpful while engaging the texts and possible problems, reposting my response from elsewhere may be helpful for those who may otherwise participate and give feedback, but may have misunderstood a key part of what I'm saying:

It was expressed elsewhere that I'm trying to paint Nephi as a wicked 'Racist'. This is unhelpful, and in this ancient case, brings in an anachronistic value judgement. Because, strictly speaking, it would be easy to say that all ancient Israelites were technically 'racist'. There was a clear dichotomy between Israelites and Gentiles. This clearly doesn't have to do with skin color - it has to do with their perception of themselves as a chosen race, a chosen family. This isn't intended to be a value statement at all. It's no more (or less) discriminatory at this period to say 'Avoid the Egyptians', or 'Avoid the Phoenicians' than it is to say 'Avoid the Dark Skinned People'.

I'm not stating or presuming that Nephi was doing something inherently wrong, or immoral, or even jumping to a wicked conclusion. If you feel this is what I'm saying, please re-read my initial statements closely.

Even if the Lord had not let Nephi know that his family needed to be avoided as to not corrupt them, there's a very good chance he would have already instituted a policy against interbreeding with assumed darker skinned locals, who would have been viewed as Gentiles, and non-Israelites.

My position is that Nephi combined two distinct ideas into one:

1) Non-israelite natives are Gentiles, not of the Covenant line, and not to be interbred with our of principle, not having anything to do with their degree of righteousness.

2) The Israelite Lehites/Lamanites are corrupt Israelites with false traditions, and because of their wicked actions, they are 'cut off' (Excommunicated, you might say) from the Lord's presence, and are to be avoided because of their unrighteousness, which behavior will make them loathsome to Nephi's law-abiding people.

My view as that both - the native 'gentiles' and the 'cut off' Israelites - were lumped into one category, with the 'made loathsome' understood as dark skin in general. Both became understood as 'Lamanites' (IE, 'Not Nephites'), and unrighteousness became connected and assumed.

You might consider it a well-intentioned 'hedge around the law'.

We see through Jacob the Lord attempting to clarify one key part: Skin Color is not to be equated with the Mark of Unrighteousness, and in many cases, those Dark Skinned are more righteous than the lighter Nephites.

I do not suppose any malicious, stupid, or conniving motivations or behaviors among the Book of Mormon leaders.

I'm keenly aware that I might - or even probably may - be wrong. But I think it is certainly worth thoughtful consideration of the position proper, and not just assumed motivations or implication. I'm happy to see that most of you here have been giving fantastic feedback, and really do appreciate it.

[zerinus]

Note that I didn't say anything about a Levitical priesthood. Most LDS scholars consider that Lehi held the Melchizedek priesthood.

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that Lehi held the Melchizedek priesthood. We know from modern revelation that Nathan and other ancient prophets held the Melchizedek priesthood, by which they were able to perform the sealing ordinance for David and others in ancient times (D&C 132:39). It is therefore perfectly reasonable that a prophet of such calibre as Lehi would have held the same priesthood. But how widespread that priesthood was among the Israelites of that time, sufficient to form a “priestly class,” is doubtful. Certainly in the post-exile period it is highly unlikely that even existed. At that time they didn’t even appear to have a priest (of the Aaronic order) in possession of the Urim and Thummim to inquire of the Lord regarding the priests who had intermarried with the Gentiles (Ezra 2:63; Nehemiah 7:65). And they were all of the Aaronic order. If they didn’t even have a proper Aaronic priesthood (to inquire of the Lord concerning the status of the priestly descendents who had intermarried), it is unlikely that they had the Melchizedek priesthood.

(The question is what the lineage for this priesthood is.)

The Melchizedek priesthood was not lineage dependent. Any worthy male Israelite who fulfilled the criteria could qualify.

The word I used was priestly. All the biblical and pseudo-biblical texts for the time period from the exile onward document various Israelite priestly classes fixated on the uncleanliness of intermarriage. It is a very strong motif in priestly literature and thus indicative that this question actually does have something to do with the priesthood, or at the very least the culture of the individuals in the priesthood at the time.

You don’t need to go further than the Bible to find evidence for that. See the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. But you are going further than what can be surmised from those texts, and making assumptions that those texts do not support. The assumptions are (1) that the “priestly” class was of the Melchizedek order, (2) that the “intermarriage” problem that arose in the post-exile period was also an issue in the pre-exile period that Lehi had lived in Jerusalem, and (3) that just because the post-exilic Jewish priestly classes had an issue with intermarriages with the Gentiles, that the cursing of Laman and Lemuel so that they would not intermarry with the descendents of Nephi must also have had Gentile/priesthood connection. None of these assumptions are justified:

1. There is no indication that the Melchizedek priesthood existed among the Jews in exile, let alone forming a “priestly class” of their own.
   
2. The intermarriage issue arose after the Jews had been taken into exile among the Gentiles. It was not an issue at the time that Lehi lived in Jerusalem, therefore Lehi would have been oblivious to it. And of course, as a Melchizedek priesthood holder (which was not lineage based) that would not have been an issue for him any way. It was the Levitical priesthood that was lineage based, therefore it raised concerns among the Jewish priests at that time about preserving the purity of the lineage. Where the lineage is not an issue, that problem no longer exists.
   
3. It is a very big leap to jump from the intermarriage issues of the post-exilic Jews to the intermarriage concerns of the Nephites and Lamanites. The Book of Mormon tells us exactly why it happened; and it had nothing to do with either the priesthood or Gentile intermarriages. God simply did not want the descencents of Nephi to intermarry with the descendants of Laman and Lemuel so that they would not be influenced by their false traditions. Neither the priesthood was an issue nor intermarriage with Gentiles.
   

The question here isn't necessarily God's intent or the purest form of the revelation. The point is that the priests at the time of the exile did believe that they were the gatekeepers to purity of intermarriage and that intermarriage was wrong. The accuracy of their belief from our perspective thousands of years later through the lens of the restored gospel is an interesting question but not one that is necessarily relevant to the question at hand. The priests at the time believed this, ergo it becomes an issue related to the priesthood.

I agree.

Do Nephi's comments about skin fit this pattern of belief?

No, I wouldn’t say so.

Has he attempted to spiritualize the results of intermarriage based on the culture from which he emerges?

I see no evidence for that.

I'm not claiming it to be the case or even to be important.

I agree that it is not.

But given the priestly literature from the time in which Nephi emerges, I think it's a fair question for DavidT to ask.

Anybody can ask any question they like I suppose, but I personally don’t see it as being even a “fair” question to ask. It is so unlikely that it seems a misleading question to ask.

Unless Laman and Lemuel intermarried with the indigenous population. Then that IS the issue.

For which there is no evidence. And the text does not give that as the reason. It gives the reason as something else. On what basis should we supplant the more likely reason given in the text by an unlikely one not found in the text?

Not necessarily, as we don't know how the administration of the priesthood they had worked. Nephi as king consecrates Jacob a priest. Why wasn't Jacob entitled to this office simply by virtue of his lineage from Lehi? Can we automatically assume that Laman and Lemuel were given the priesthood or priesthood offices by Lehi? I don't think we can.

That is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that whatever the reasons were for the cursing of Laman and Lemuel, it could not have had a priesthood dimension of the kind that you are stipulating. The priesthood dimension under which the post-exilic Jews became concerned about intermarriages with Gentiles was not an issue, and did not apply to the cursing of Laman and Lemuel.

Whether or not you agree with my perspective, I hope I've made it a little clearer.

Yes you did, thank you. I hope that I was also able to make my point clearer than before.

Edited April 6, 2012 by zerinus

[Log]

For which [intermarriage of the Lamanites with indigenous outsiders] there is no evidence [in the text].

Actually, if I may interject, there is - not a slam dunk case, to be sure.

In abbreviated form, the Mulekites spoke a corrupted language. There is no indication of communication problems with Coriantumr. The corruption of their language can be reasonably inferred to be linguistic mixing with remants of the Jaredite nation. It is reasonable to infer also this may have included a degree of intermarriage with these remnants.

Zeniff spoke the language of the Lamanites. It is clear the Lamanites were not speaking the Nephite language, because Amulon and his fellow priests are expressly credited with introducing the language of the Nephites among the Lamanites. We may infer Zeniff spoke whatever corrupted langauge the Mulekites spoke, and that this kind of language was also what the Lamanites were speaking.

With the language of indigenous peoples among the Lamanites comes the inference of intermarriage.

Additional evidence of intermarriage might be inferred from the fact that Zeniff was a successful spy among the Lamanites. If he spied from a distance, this means nothing, but if he was up-close and personal, then Zeniff had to resemble them beyond the language spoken, and the most likely explanation is that both the Mulekites and the Lamanites were intermarrying with the indigenous peoples and had acquired some similar ethnic features.

That's the broad outlines of the thinking.

Edited April 6, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

Actually, if I may interject, there is - not a slam dunk case, to be sure.

There is more evidence against it than for it.

In abbreviated form, the Mulekites spoke a corrupted language.

For which there is an explanation in the Book of Mormon. The reason is that they had brought no record with them (Omni 1:17); and over a period of several hundred years they had developed a dialect which was sufficiently different from the Nephites’ that they could no longer be understood by one another. Any linguist will tell you several hundred years of linguistic isolation, especially without a written tradition, is sufficient to develop a dialect sufficiently diffferent that one group would become incomprehensible to the other.

There is no indication of communication problems with Coriantumr.

There is no indication to the contrary either. The text is so brief that we cannot be expected to know of any communication difficulties that might have existed.

The corruption of their language can be reasonably inferred to be linguistic mixing with remants of the Jaredite nation.

There is absolutely no justification for that assumption.

It is reasonable to infer also this may have included a degree of intermarriage with these remnants.

Not true.

Zeniff spoke the language of the Lamanites. It is clear the Lamanites were not speaking the Nephite language, because Amulon and his fellow priests are expressly credited with introducing the language of the Nephites among the Lamanites. We may infer Zeniff spoke whatever corrupted langauge the Mulekites spoke, and that this kind of language was also what the Lamanites were speaking.

No such inference can be made. The Lamanites had also become isolated from the Nephites (without a written tradition), and had developed their own dialect. But their dialect was not so different that it was totally incomprehensible to the Nephites. The sons of Mosiah for example didn’t need special language training to preach the gospel among the Lamanites. I don’t think you realize the importance of dialect in language. There are many living languages in the world today, especially in Asia and Middle East, which have regional dialects which make them almost incomprehensible to each other. Even in the United States there are regions which speak dialects which makes it hard for one to clearly understand the other—until one gets used to it.

With the language of indigenous peoples among the Lamanites comes the inference of intermarriage.

Additional evidence of intermarriage might be inferred from the fact that Zeniff was a successful spy among the Lamanites. If he spied from a distance, this means nothing, but if he was up-close and personal, then Zeniff had to resemble them beyond the language spoken, and the most likely explanation is that both the Mulekites and the Lamanites were intermarrying with the indigenous peoples and had acquired some similar ethnic features.

These are all bogus assumptions. No such inferences can be made from the given text.

[Log]

I'm gratified that you could find no contradiction between my inferences and the text of the Book of Mormon. Your personal distaste for the theory coupled with this inability means I probably have got something here.

[zerinus]

I'm gratified that you could find no contradiction between my inferences and the text of the Book of Mormon. Your personal distaste for the theory coupled with this inability means I probably have got something here.

Your wishful thinking cannot harm anyone, I am sure.

[Log]

Your wishful thinking cannot harm anyone, I am sure.

I don't know; you certainly appear to have taken exception to what it pleases you to call my harmless "wishful thinking." Perhaps if you could tell me what is so exercising about my thoughts, we could come to some kind of understanding. For example, you said there was evidence against it. What evidence, precisely?

Edited April 6, 2012 by Log

[J Green]

The Melchizedek priesthood was not lineage dependent. Any worthy male Israelite who fulfilled the criteria could qualify.

We don't really have any insight into how the Melchizedek priesthood was administered in pre-exilic times and whether or not any worthy Israelite male could qualify. But in any case, I'm not referring to lineage in the levitical sense anyway. I'm referring to lineage (or "line" if you will) in the same sense that I have a Melchizedek priesthood lineage that can be traced back to Joseph Smith. Of course, in the OT this would still have been along family/clan lines. A good example is Melchizedek's own lineage that is traced back along clan lines in D&C 84. The salient point of interest is Lehi's priesthood lineage in this sense. From whom did it come? If it operated like D&C 84, we would assume that Lehi received it in the same way Nephi and Jacob received it---in a family/clan setting. Why did Lehi's family hold the Melchizedek priesthood? Where did it come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? (Just kidding.)

You don’t need to go further than the Bible to find evidence for that. See the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. But you are going further than what can be surmised from those texts, and making assumptions that those texts do not support. The assumptions are (1) that the “priestly” class was of the Melchizedek order, (2) that the “intermarriage” problem that arose in the post-exile period was also an issue in the pre-exile period that Lehi had lived in Jerusalem, and (3) that just because the post-exilic Jewish priestly classes had an issue with intermarriages with the Gentiles, that the cursing of Laman and Lemuel so that they would not intermarry with the descendents of Nephi must also have had Gentile/priesthood connection. None of these assumptions are justified:

A few corrections:

1. I don't assume that the priestly classes in the bible held the Melchizedek priesthood and never stated as much.

2. The intermarriage issue is more nuanced then you make it out to be. There was always a preoccupation with intermarriage in ancient Israel, but the scope changed through the years, culminating in an absolutist environment during the return under Ezra. But you see the concern written into the pre-exilic law in several places, including the discouragement of even inter-tribal marriage among pre-exilic Israel (Num 36:1-10). Scholars will trace redactions of these laws (specially Dueteronomy) and their concern with various specific gentile groups in ancient Israel, to include Canaanites, etc. The priestly versions of these redactions are the ones most concerned with an absolutist claims, and this priestly form found its culminating expression in the return under Ezra, but the expression itself didn't start there, and neither did the priestly redactions. There are varying opinions about where this movement started and how early. I see no reason to think that Lehi wouldn't have lived in a milieu where this expression was forming.

3. I have made no dogmatic assertions here. I simply think that if Nephi comes from a milieu in which the priestly classes actively opposed intermarriages then it is reasonable to ask whether or not he was influenced by that culture. There is no claim that we can know the answer to this question, that it is important, or that it must be true. It is simply a line of inquiry based on knowledge of a certain culture within Nephi's place of origin. I don't understand your objections to asking the question.

Anybody can ask any question they like I suppose, but I personally don’t see it as being even a “fair” question to ask. It is so unlikely that it seems a misleading question to ask.

Given this, I wonder why you keep responding on this subject. Just ignore it.

Regards